Spain v. Haseotes ( 1997 )

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 95-1530
LENORA SPAIN, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs, Appellants,
v.
DEMETRIOS HASEOTES, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Joseph L. Tauro, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Selya, Boudin and Stahl,
Circuit Judges.
Stanley R. Cohen on brief for appellants.
Philip J. Moss and Moon, Moss, McGill & Bachelder, P.A. on brief
for appellees.
JUNE 9, 1997
Per Curiam. After carefully reviewing the record
and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the
district court dismissing the complaint of the plaintiffs-
appellants. In so doing, we essentially rely on the
reasoning contained in that court's order, dated August 9,
1995. We add only the following comments.
The state common law claims of the plaintiffs
are governed by state law. In cases based on diversity of
citizenship or on pendent jurisdiction, the federal district
court must apply the forum state's choice-of-law rules. See
Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487, 496
(1941); Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994, 1002 (2d Cir.
1989). Thus, we look to Massachusetts conflicts law to
determine what limitations period it would apply.
Massachusetts, in turn, uses "the traditional rule that the
local law of the forum determines whether an action is barred
by a statute of limitations." Hemric v. Reed & Prince Mfg.
Co., 739 F.2d 1, 2-3 (1st Cir. 1984) (applying the
Massachusetts statute of limitations to a claim based on a
tort which occurred in North Carolina); Cosme v. Whitin Mach.
Works, Inc., 417 Mass. 643, 645, 632 N.E.2d 832, 834 (1994)
(Massachusetts considers statutes of limitations as
procedural and, as the forum state, applies its own law).
The limitations period for torts in Massachusetts
is three years. See M.G.L.c. 260, 2A. Similarly, a three-
-2-
year limitations period governs plaintiffs' claims based on
the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act. Id. 5B. Because the
case at hand was commenced more than three years after all of
the plaintiffs' tort claims accrued, these claims are time-
barred. We can see no reason to apply the doctrine of
fraudulent concealment in the circumstances of this case.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed and
all pending motions are therefore denied as moot.
-3-